Thursday, March 31, 2016

One of the biggest debates that we have in the field of social science
research is the role of evaluation (e.g., evaluation of a policy, the completion
of treatment goals or of the program itself) and where independence sits within
it. Should organisations and governments conduct their own evaluations, or does
that create a conflict of interest? Is all independent research really
independent, or is it just independent of the organization/provider? How
independent is it of the researcher’s own biases? It is important to consider
these factors when deciding to do research, validate programmes, conduct
evaluation and implement change.

The place to start is asking the right questions: What is the purpose of
evaluation, research, and development of an evidence base; is it to justify
what is being done, a required part of a larger grant or project, to see if
what is being done is working, to justify an existing programme/venture or to
implement something new in a broader fashion? Is it about “evidence based
policy” [research driven] or “policy based evidence” [ideologically driven]? On
the other hand, is an organisation implementing an evidence-based practice or
developing practice-based evidence in earnest?

The reasoning behind the purpose of the research is as important as the
research being conducted, especially if the research is being used to justify
or implement something; therefore, is the research question trying to see if
something is working or if something is going to work in a different setting.
This means that evaluation can often usher in change to policies and
programmes, which can be minor or major but often seen as significant by people
on the ground. This can, in turn, bring about new questions: Should an
organisation implement a top-down approach or method, or integrate it in
accordance with the unique characteristics and contributions of those who work
and benefit from it? It is important that everyone involved in the process recognizes
the importance of evaluation in the evolution of our research and working; it’s
not a threat but rather an opportunity to see if something works, to identify
good practice and identify bad practice. Therefore, who should conduct
evaluation research; organisations themselves or external organisations/researchers?

It is generally viewed that good research is independent research as
organisations are often considered to be biased in how they evaluate their own
programmes and practices. The notion that organisations cannot conduct their
own critical, methodologically sound and unbiased research is outdated,
problematic and questionable. The issue is not with research or methodology,
but rather with how organisations understand, priorities and train their staff
in research. If staff do not fully understand research and its impact, then
their ability to develop, conduct, justify and roll out research becomes
problematic. This is a training issue and investment issue, not an independence
issue. This is reinforced by the fact that not all research and researchers are
independent with the same researchers being used by the same organisations
frequently and/or with research tending processes being subjective. Which
means that so called independent research can be as subjective and biased as
research conducted by the organisation itself; particularly, if the
organisations do not have their own in house understanding of research, their
own critical reflection of research and how to process it.

The processes involved in research involve interaction between the
researcher and the organisation, regardless of whether the research is
independent or not, with both needing to be able to work together to collect
the data and implement change. A decision not to engage in the research process
or implement changes is problematic regardless of who conducts the evaluation
and has nothing to do with independence, but rather it’s about quality control.

The most important part of doing evaluation research is the process and
methodology, it is about accepting the good and the bad on both fronts
[researcher and organisation]; it’s about us and us, not them and us.
Evaluation is about change and evolution, not revolution and condemnation.
Evaluation is about maintaining funding, generating funding, maintaining good
practice and eliminating bad practice. It’s a process, not an end point.

The recent Adam
Johnson trial in the UK has raised lots of questions about how we think and
talk about sexual relationships with youths and teenagers, especially what they
perceive an appropriate sexual relationships to be and why. Are we having the
correct conversations with the correct people and the right time? Also, how do
we react to youths when they ask about sex, talk about relationships or
disclose sexually harmful behaviours?

Adam Johnson [28 years of age] is
a premier League footballer who played for Sunderland and the English national
team, he was a local and national celebrity who was held in high regard;
yesterday he was sentenced to 6 years for grooming, kissing and having sexual
activity with a 15 year old girl. The victim
was a supporter of Sunderland Football Club and a fan of Johnson, they came
into contact via social media where she friended him via Facebook and conversed
via whatsapp. During the time that the abuse was occurring Johnson and his
victim exchanged over 800 whatsapp messages [on a second whatsapp account that
he created to converse with the victim only and keep these conversations a
secret] which clearly demonstrated Johnson’s grooming behaviour, including
attempts to silence the victim, cover up the abuse and a conversation about her
age. In addition, Johnson’s phone records and internet records showed that he
searched for the age of consent in the UK, checked teen sites [nice
young teens] and looked at extreme pornography [mainly linked to bestiality].
A psychologist
involved in the case stated that they did not think that Johnson was a
paedophile or sexually interested in children, but rather that his offence was
an extension of a sexually promiscuous lifestyle and the opportunities, as well
as attitudes that accompanied being a high profile footballer.

The Adam Johnson, while
problematic, is not the only high profile one relating to celebrity that has
emerged in recent months and years; the surprising aspect of the case is our [societies]
reaction to it and its acceptability in some quarters. In respect to the
Johnson trial we have seen;

4.A
misunderstanding of the nature of what sexual abuse is, its impact and the
terminology [especially the phase paedophile] by the public
and media

5.Public
misperceptions of how judges sentence in these cases and what it means in real
terms.

The real stories at the heart of
the Johnson trial are [1] how we talk to our children and teenagers about sex,
healthy sexual relationships and appropriate behaviour; [2] abuse by people in
positions of respect, trust and the safeguards in place to prevent the abuse
occurring; and [3] how we understand and respond to inappropriate sexual
behaviour between youths and adults.

The real story here is about a
teenager who got to meet, was groomed by and taken advantage of by a celebrity
that she idolised. The real story here is about how youths [children and
teenagers] know how to identify sexually problematic situations, how they react
in these situations and where they can go for help. The real story here is
about an adult who made inappropriate and problematic decisions without any
thought for the victim, only for themselves.

In the Johnson case the court of
public opinion was split, but vocal on both sides with some members of the
public supporting him, stating that the teenager lead him on and that she knew
what she was doing, that she was “old enough to know better” [they created a
facebook page “Justice
for Johnson” which has since been removed because of inappropriate comments
and content]; but given the victims statement,
that is not true – it was a perfect storm. It is clear that Johnson groomed his
victim and people surrounding him. The public discussion of the Johnson case
does clearly demonstrate the need for greater public education and discussion
regarding sexual activity in and with youths; it has become clear that sections
of the public did not see the abuse as ‘abuse’ or even problematic ignoring the
abuse of trust and the responsibility of the perpetrator to act appropriately.
As we know abuse of any kind can have a lasting and significant effect upon the
victim, as is demonstrated in this case, and that there are not degrees of
acceptability in sexual harm.

What this case does reinforce is
the need for better sexual education, better relationship advice, better
safeguarding advice and a need for a range of responsible citizens (parents,
teachers, etc) to deliver a consistent message. The conversation about
healthily sexual relationships is a difficult for families and the state to
navigate, who is responsible for having the conversation in the first place [especially
when we have a paradoxical mind-set to talking to our youths about sex, in that
we try to protect them by not really discussing sex and relationships but this
may result in them being in risky situations and making poorer decisions], the
parents, the school, peers, the internet, all or none? We do know that in the
UK the state, via schools, are not providing a consistent response as they
believe that sexual education [including what is an appropriate sexual
relationship and behaviours] is a not compulsory part of
the national curriculum that should be taught the same in all schools
nationally; therefore sexual education is inconsistent and incomplete
nationally. Hence reinforcing an air of confusion and ambiguity, for whose
responsibility is it [schools, parents, peers, the media or all?], are we
surprised that our youths look elsewhere for answers [media, celebrity, pornography]
and do not feel comfortable disclosing sexual issues that they face with families
as well as friends if they receive no response or a negative backlash? The learning
curve in the Adam Johnson trial is not just limited to him, his behaviour and
celebrity culture; but it is also linked to us as a society and our responses
to victims of sexual harm, their disclosures and how we discuss healthily
sexual relationships with youths. The Adam Johnson trial makes us question how
far we have moved forward in discussing sexual harm and society’s response it;
do we fully understand sexual harm, what it looks like, its causes and consequences?

Friday, March 18, 2016

Maia Christopher is ATSA’s executive
director, most people will recognise her from conference, those who have had
the chance to speak and meet with her will recognise that the majority of the work
she does on a daily basis supports ATSA’s mission in the field of sexual harm
prevention. Maia has many roles which include sitting on national and
international committees, speaking at conferences and other events, as well as
helping to frame the sexual harm agenda. I talked to Maia about her work, where
she came from, how she got to where she is today and where she sees herself in
the future. We also spoke about the field of sexual harm moving into the
future.

Given Maia’s expertise and experiences
from her criminal justice and treatment days in Canada, to taking over and managing
ATSA, to the high level collaborative work she is involved in now, it was hard
to identify how to ground this narrative. Then she gave me an example, an
unconventional piece of prevention work that she had recently been involved
with and everything slotted together. Maia told me of a recent experience that she
and Kelly McGrath, Associate Director of ATSA, had when they attended a conference.

Every year ATSA has a conference
and every year Maia and the ATSA staff assist in the development of the
programme around it. From arranging book sellers to sorting out finances and
planning everything else that needs to happen over the main 5 days of the
conference.

Maia told me that herself and
Kelly recently attended an event planning conference, the aim of which was to
give conference organisers insights, ideas and new approaches to better plan
and streamline large conferences. The night before they left for the conference
they were deciding what to bring with them to promote ATSA and the work that,
as an organisation, is presented at ATSA’s annual conference. They items they took included twenty-four prevention badges emblazoned with
slogans promoting ATSA’s work. Maia and Kelly distributed these badges across
the event planning conference venue the night before the conference, out of the
sight of other attendees. The simple distribution of the prevention badges had
a massive impact during and beyond the life of the conference. Attendees began
having conversations with each other and with Maia about sexual abuse, victims,
policy, prevention, how people are impacted by sexual harm, what treatment
looks like, whether offenders are mad or bad and related news coverage.

People picked up the badges and
thought about how sexual harm had affected their lives and/or the lives of
people close to them. Seeing the badges promoted people to talk, some of whom
were uncomfortable about the conversation, but they all felt the conversation
was one that needed to be had. The reason why this is important is because
these individuals where not representatives from the arena of sexual harm or
related professions like police, probation or prisons— “outsiders” not
”insiders”. This meant that Maia, Kelly and the badges were not preaching to
the converted, but people from a range of different, unrelated and everyday
professions who were more representative of the public at large.

Although, the debate and
discussion among the delegates was important it was not the only significant thing
that happened. Across the life of the conference the attendees started to think
about how conferences, as an entity, could be more productively used to
highlight and discuss issues of sexual harm; including information about
safeguarding attendees, local support service on sexual harm matters and how an
increase in awareness of sexual harm issues for hotel staff could be provided.
Maia felt that a door had been opened on to the topic of sexual harm by people
not working in the field who wanted to discuss and promote it in the areas in
which they worked.

Maia felt that the badges
had a massive impact, that they were an ice breaker, a mechanism through which
people could discuss sexual harm and relate it back to their lives and
experiences while also thinking about how they could incorporate it into their
daily workings. Interestingly, Maia felt that the real success here was in
stepping out of the field, going to non-sexual harm related conferences and
talking about the issue. She feels that this is part of her, and every ATSA
member’s job. Although, she did recognise that she would have felt it was a
massive leap of faith when she was working in the criminal justice system as
opposed to the smaller leap of faith that she has to take in the role she has
now. Maia closed the conversation with some pertinent advice to us all when
talking to people who do not work in the sexual harm field about the main
issues – “keep it simple, keep it to the point, listen and respond”.

Saturday, March 5, 2016

This is the second of two Q & A
posts, over the next couple of weeks, on upcoming special editions of SAJRT.
There is currently a call for papers out on a special edition related to “Connecting
Theory With Research: Testing Hypotheses About the Causes of Sexual Offending”,
please read the blog below and if you are interested in submitting an article
follow the instructions on the SAJRT website (http://sax.sagepub.com/content/28/1/73.full.pdf+html) – Kieran

What is the topic of the special issue?

We
are very happy to be guest editors of this special issue of Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and
Treatment! (Follow this link to see
the call for papers: (http://sax.sagepub.com/content/28/1/73.full.pdf+html.) This
special issue is meant to take stock of the state of the available evidence
regarding theoretical assertions about the causes of sexual offending and to provide
guidance for future research. We are hoping to receive manuscripts that focus
on questions such as the following: What evidence do
we have regarding assertions about the causes of sexual offending made in
theories/models of sexual offending? What evidence is missing? How credible is
the available evidence? What methodological approaches (e.g., design,
measurement, analysis, etc.) will yield more conclusive evidence?

What is the story behind this special
issue?

We wanted to facilitate discussion in the field about research
on the causes of sexual offending. We got things started by conducting a pre-conference seminar
with Michael Seto, Tony Beech, and Patrick Lussier at last year’s ATSA conference in
Montreal. We received generous funding and other support from the Social
Sciences and Humanities Research Council (Connection grant), ATSA, and the Carleton
University Psychology Department for our pre-conference seminar—thank you very
much! (The handouts from our pre-conference seminar are available on Kevin’s
lab website: www.carleton.ca/acbrlab) We are now aiming to take the
discussion further with this special issue of Sexual Abuse: A
Journal of Research and Treatment. We thank Michael Seto for his support
and SAGE for
generously providing complimentary open access publishing through toll-free linking
for articles in this special issue—thank you very much!

Why is this topic (communicated
through the pre-conference seminar and special issue) important for researchers
and practitioners who work to prevent sexual abuse?

Identifying
causes of sexual offending is the foundation of effective and efficient assessment
and intervention aimed at managing and reducing sexual offending. Practice is
often guided by implicit or explicit assumptions about the causes of sexual
offending. For example, if you believe that changing attitudes (or any other
factor you think is important) through treatment reduces the likelihood of
sexual offending, then you believe that attitudes are a cause of sexual
offending. Thanks to the efforts of pioneering researchers and practitioners, impressive advances
have been made in our field. Numerous theories and models provide carefully
considered and well-informed hypotheses about the causes of sexual offending.
However, credible tests of these hypothesesare remarkably
rare. Even more remarkable is that this important gap in scientific knowledge
seems to be recognized or acknowledged by so few people in our area,
researchers and non-researchers alike. We know that testing such hypotheses is
very difficult, but methodological rigor is a matter of degree and there is
certainly room for improvement. In part, the scarcity of rigorous tests may be
due to uncertainty about the relevant empirical evidence available and the
optimal methodological approaches required. Our hope for this special issue is
that it will raise awareness about important gaps in knowledge regarding the
causes of sexual offending and identify ways to narrow those gaps. We believe this
will help researchers to do more rigorous and informative studies on the causes
of sexual offending, which, ultimately, will help practitioners and
policy-makers to more effectively and efficiently reduce sexual offending.

Kieran McCartan, PhD

Chief Blogger

David Prescott, LICSW

Associate blogger

Translate

The Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers (http://atsa.com/) is an international, multi-disciplinary organization dedicated to preventing sexual abuse. Through research, education, and shared learning ATSA promotes evidence based practice, public policy and community strategies that lead to the effective assessment, treatment and management of individuals who have sexually abused or are risk to abuse.

The views expressed on this blog are of the bloggers and are not necessarily those of the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers, Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research & Treatment, or Sage Journals.

Disclaimer

ATSA does not endorse, support, represent or guarantee the completeness, truthfulness, accuracy, or reliability of any Content posted. ATSA does not necessarily or automatically endorse any opinions expressed within this blog. You understand that by reading this blog, you may be exposed to content or opinions that might be offensive, harmful, inaccurate or otherwise inappropriate. Under no circumstances will ATSA be liable in any way for any Content, including, but not limited to, any errors or omissions in any Content, or any loss or damage of any kind incurred as a result of the use of any Content or opinions posted, emailed, transmitted, or otherwise made available via this blog.